User talk:Rgulerdem/Archive 5 (May 7, 06)

Unblocked

After discussions on the Adminstrator's Noticeboard you've been unblocked. JT has agreed to serve as your de facto mentor. Be good, pretend that today is your first day, and please don't make me look like an idiot for brokering this. - brenneman^{L} 02:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aaron, If you could know me a little bit from the discussions so far, I think you should be confident that you will not regret for it. I would like to thank you very much for taking the issue... Best, Resid Gulerdem 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!!

Welcome back Resid. Netpari 02:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Salma, Should I say Netpari? Thanks for your support and warm expressions on ArbCom page. I think you tried to leave a message on my Turkish talk page too, am I right? I unfortunately cannot express my feelings how debtful I feel for your comments and support. It was very valuable for me. I wish I was able to give you a rose for it... Still could not explain my appreciation. Thanks a ton... Resid Gulerdem 03:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Aww! That's so sweet! But honestly, I just felt that everyone was being so hard on you in spite of the fact that you were so civil; that just struck me as unfair. I've seen many instances of contributors who have quit Wikipedia (User: BrandonYusufToropov for example) and the fact that you just stuck it out is very admirable. I wish you good luck and smooth sailing from now on. Netpari 14:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Resid. I hope we can put the past behind us and not need to go down that road again. Good luck for the future. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:56 UTC (2006-04-27)

I'm looking forward to a fresh start. Cheers, —Ruud 01:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I think you should leave the Wikiethics proposal alone for a while and work on other things. I'm not an admin, but I think pursuing the Wikiethic proposal the you are will not help your future position. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Hello Resid, welcome back to editing, and thanks for the nice note you left on my talk page. I'm hear to help you - so please let me know what advice I can give, etc. I'm so happy you are able to contribute again. Johntex\^talk 19:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thanks your help again. Without you, I couldn't be here anymore. OK dear mentor, here is what I think: I would like to complete the proposal I have started. I did a few minor modifications already. Since Wikiethics is inactive now, further changes and improvements should not cause any edit wars. When it is ready, I would like to start an approval poll. How does that sound? Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that is a good idea. I have two suggestions about it: Since the Wikiethics proposal has been somewhat controversial - it may be a good idea to work on it in your user area. Did you know that you can create (for example) User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics or User:Rgulerdem/Sandbox? Even though technically a user does not even WP:OWN their own user space, it is far less likely anyone will want to jump in and start editing it in your own space. You can also invite people like me or Netpari to make suggestions, if you wish. My second suggestion is to see if you can set aside some portion of your wiki time to just making improvements on articles that interest you. People tend to be suspicous of someone who spends all their time editing proposals and the like versus contributing to articles. Those would be my two suggestions. Johntex\^talk 20:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more suggestions about Wikiethics - because some people feel voting is evil, there should be a period of discussion about the proposal before anyone calls for a straw poll. When a straw poll is called, there should be a defined period of time announced for the poll. Otherwise, we leave open the possibility of someone claiming that the poll was closed based upon how the voting goes. Also, the poll should be announced in a neutral way, at a neutral site, like the village pump. This would be a simple statement that the poll exists, and not an appeal to vote one way or the other. Notifications to individual users are somewhat controversial - we can talk about that more when the time comes. Johntex\^talk 21:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I do not want to announce the poll at the V Pump this time. I will ask you or Netpari or anyone willing to do so, to post the note. I know that there are a few people out there who are ready to say 'no' whatever I say and just because I say it.

Second thing is, since the proposal is inactive, I am not expecting that someone come and revert our edits. It does not seem to me practicle to carry it to my account, especially after all what has hapened. What do you think? If necessary we can do it of course. I can copy paste a version and leave the current version there as a reference. Resid Gulerdem 05:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Resid, I think you have a good idea to ask someone else to post it to the V Pump when it is ready. If no one else is editing Wikiethics, then editing it where it is should be OK - I just don't want to risk any edit wars. I think it would be OK to keep working on it in place, and then move it over here if any trouble arises. Best, Johntex\^talk 07:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you please add a detailed process of going through proper channel under Conflict Resolution on the Wikiethics page so that the [situation] that was created in the past may not be repeated again. Netpari 23:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netpari, would you like to participate in this effort? Resid Gulerdem 05:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not going to be as knowledgable as other users in terms of Wikipedia jargon nor do I currently know how the hierarchial structure is set up. Also, I may sometimes disagree with your perspective that your set of rules can apply to every user. But, be assured that it will not be argument for the sake of argument. Also, I will be inclined to keep things "terse and torrid" rather than lose everyone's attention with long winded statements. What do you think? Netpari 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netpari, I agree with what you said. I am really open to any and primarily your positive and constructive ideas, not necessarily agrees with mine. I couldn't quite see what you mean when you say 'set of rules apply to every user'. Could you please make it a bit clearer? Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 03:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resid, At the risk of generalizing here is what I feel: (And I'm very very very sorry if this may distress anyone even a little bit.) Our previous generation did away with a lot of ideas that have been an integral part of indigenous culture. This was done in the name of modernity and a notion that progress could be made if an overarching uniform ideology was embraced. I (and this is just me, sorry again) feel that it was an experiment that veered in a wrong direction...if you examine the world closely today many third world nations are making progress and "modernizing" themselves without losing their ideologies that they have carried with them for centuries. Even genetics has proven that certain populations are more susceptible to diseases than others are and the medication that applies to one does not apply to the other. What I am getting at is that modern philosophy and its branches like ethics (as defined in English) are primarily a product of Westen thinking. (Again, I am not condemning the West...I promise) If you examine other cultures, you will find that your rules will be taken with a pinch of salt. Since the language utilized in writing these rules is English, incomprehensible in its subtleties to many, the ethics page will be dismissed as an attempt to impose rules that will not be followed. I don't know if I make any sense but at least you now know where I'm coming from. Netpari 15:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netpari, if I understand you correctly, I can say that I am not trying to impose my values to others. I would not like it even if possible. The reason I was inviting many people is that, they help me to put into a form that might be accepted by many. I was not so realistic by thinking that I will have many people try to help me in that direction. The bottom line is, I want Wikiethics be based on universal values not based on any specific tradition. I would appreciate anyone who help me in this regard. Does this address your concern?

Edit wars

Resid Gulerdem was very frequently not civil with other good faith editors particularly when he called them vandals and referred to their good faith edits as vandalism, as well he very frequently disrespectfully addressed uninvolved editors and admins who made efforts to intercede and stop his frequent edit warring when they became aware of conflicts regarding him. If Resid does not follow the advice given by his mentor User:Johntex and continues to edit on the Wikipedia:Wikiethics policy while it is in its rejected status (whereby he can be a defacto owner and likely not experience the outside influence of other editors on it) he will likely encounter further future resistance that will again incline him to return to his edit warring ways and see him once and for all permanently blocked. If you're following this Resid, you would do well to do like you said you would previously and follow the suggestions given to you by your mentor. Netscott 08:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Resid, I don't like the sound of this. Why don't we put Wikipedia:Wikiethics on the back burner and work on something else. I have a tendency to run away from conflicts, which is bad I guess but is fine in this case. Netpari 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netpari you should worry about him as he was one of the main trouble maker. Can you think a person who still following my steps? I really cannot see his motivation. On the other hand if we disregard his way of saying, and assume good faith, he says that I should be careful. I understand your concerns too. I have a plan below, pelase let me know what you think.

Hi Resid. I really think it would be best to avoid controversial issues. Making non-controversial edits to the main article space is the best way to let people improve their impression of you. Then they won't be able to accuse you of someone who is here just to argue over policy rather than help build the encyclopedia. I recommend doing other work for a month or so. After that, if you want to work on Wikiethics, I suggest you do it in your Sandbox to start out with. This is not any sort of direct order or anything, but it is my strong recommendation. Johntex\^talk 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, I understand your concern and it is reasonable. I will try to do that as much as I can. While doing that, I have a plan below about the Wikiethics proposal. Please let me know what you think?

Future Plan

Let us not touch WP:ETH page. Leave it as archived for a while.
Using the two version User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics1 and User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics2 above, we can quickly finilize a new version: User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics. Wikiethics 1 is an old version, Wikiethics 2 is the current version.
In the new version, your rewording and contribution will be critical as I have put almost all I believe should be in. It is hard for me to see my mistakes and typos. You can see and modify on the other hand. We can discuss any inclusion or exclusion...
Then we post what we have to WP:ETH page and start a poll. During the poll since noone will edit it, there will be no danger of edit wars. I think the duration of the poll shout at least be 4 months.
If it goes well, fine...
If it gets rejected, we can collect the objections to revise the text.

Could you please let me know if this sounds like a plan? Best, Resid Gulerdem 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Sounds perfect. I was only fearing for you after reading what Netscott wrote. Its interesting how your English is so eloquent on the Wikiethics page and so colloquial on mine. I have plenty of time to help until Memorial Day weekend after which I will be out of town for three weeks. Netpari 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about my English on your page. I need to think what I am saying for a better wording. If I write very quickly the results are not that good. I am glad that you liked the plan. I can see your attitude regarding Netscott phenomena: Do not worry that much, I can handle him :) Returning evil with good may change the hearts. He may even become a friend in the development of the policy and a supporter later on, who knows... Because I know my steps are watched, it is my responsibility to show that I am not as bad as someone may assume. I hope we can finish the new version by Memorial Day, can we? It would be great if the poll is started before you go. Needless to say, in any case, we are expecting you come back after that 3 weeks. Resid Gulerdem 06:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netpari, did you start your revision on this page or the proposal itself WP:ETH? It is not important for me except it would be good to fix one for revision. They are the same at this point. Resid Gulerdem 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resid, if you have anything to say about anyone please email me. Do not post your opinion on the talk page.Netpari 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busy

I should put a note here: I will be leaving for a conference tomorrow, and next week I have another one. This and next week I might not be so prompt in my responses. If the plan above sounds good and want to give it a hand, that would be great. I will try to find some time to visit the page for modifications too but it may not be as regular. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 23:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done

I am done spell checking The Wikiethics Draft page and changing it as I saw suitable. Netpari 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Netpari. I asked to Johntex if he can review the proposal before starting a poll. I will also make some minor modifications on it. We may go over quickly once again before the poll starts. Best. Resid Gulerdem 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netpari, is this explanation to the Wikiethics talk page appropriate to start the poll when we are done?

Discussing edits prior to editing?

Resid, in this edit you tell other editors on the Fethullah Gülen article: "It is a standard in Wiki that we discuss before editing the articles." This is entirely wrong and goes very counter to WP:BOLD. Are you quoting rules that the Turkish Wikipedia has adopted or is this sooner an example of your altering the truth to your benefit in the same way that you tried to do when you exhibited ownership on Wikiethics? Also from looking at your contributions it doesn't appear as though you are truly following the advice of your mentor to not do editing solely related to Wikiethics. Netscott 19:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, I responded to your questions on the Netpari's talk page. I also explicitely said there that this is my last message to you. Please do not raise the same, answered points again and again. It was pretty nice to know you. Byee... RG

Poll explanation

Sounds a bit too technical. Maybe you could say a little as to why its so useful to have Wikiethics around and that you would appreciate some input on the talk page rather than just a simple Approve or Oppose. I would love for your sales pitch to sound factual yet emotionally appealing not just purely logical. Netpari 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it sound better at all? Resid Gulerdem 03:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Good luck getting this through! Netpari 04:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]